Former Bula chairman Mr James Stanley was yesterday refused leave to seek an order quashing the report of the Government-appointed inspector into the beneficial ownership of shares in Bula Resources Holdings plc.

Mr Justice Geoghegan ruled Mr Stanley could not use the High Court as a court of appeal against the findings of the inspector, Mr Lyndon MacCann. There was no evidence to support allegations that Mr MacCann had acted outside his remit, unfairly or improperly.

In his report, Mr MacCann found Mr Stanley had personally benefited by some £660,000 sterling from the sale of Bula shares transferred to Mir Oil Development Limited. The inspector also found that Mr Stanley was responsible for a bogus oil find report relating to an oil well - Well 705 - in western Siberia.

During the hearing of the application for leave to seek judicial review on Monday, it was submitted on behalf of Mr Stanley that the inspector's whole report was "so flawed" that it should be set aside in its entirety.

Mr Stanley has been in Russia for some time but he was present in the High Court on Monday afternoon. He was not in court yesterday. During Monday's ex-parte hearing, Mr James Gilhooly argued that Mr MacCann's warrant of appointment from the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ms Harney, was effectively a "Lone Ranger" brief to look at a wide range of matters.

Counsel argued that Mr MacCann, in seeking to find out what happened in relation to Well 705, had acted in excess of his remit and powers.

Giving judgment on the application yesterday, Mr Justice Geoghegan said he was refusing leave to seek judicial review. He said it was implicit not to allow the High Court become a court of appeal as such from the inspector, appointed by the Minister.

He said he appreciated it was not an appeal but an application for leave to bring a judicial review. However, he continued, the order sought could only be permitted if there was some prima facie evidence of arguable procedural impropriety and some fundamental area of law undermining the inquiry. Mr Justice Geoghegan said he was satisfied neither of those conditions had been fulfilled and he rejected the various substantive and procedural grounds on which the application was made. Dealing with the various grounds, Mr Justice Geoghegan said there was an allegation that the inspector had gone beyond what he had been asked to do - which was discovering beneficial ownership of shares - in investigating reports of the drilling of Well 705 in Siberia.

He was satisfied that argument was based on a misreading of the inspector's report and was not an arguable reading. It seemed that the events surrounding the drilling and reports on the drilling were relevant to the report and matters to be investigated under the warrant and terms of reference of the inspector.

Mr Justice Geoghgean found there was no evidence to support a submission that the inspector had been appointed for improper motives.

Dealing with submissions relating to procedural grounds for judicial review, he said there was no evidence of unlawful procedures being adopted by the inspector. He found the announcement of results from Well 705 would appear to have been clearly relevant to the matters to be investigated. He said there seemed to be sound and adequate reasons given for the approach the inspector had taken. There was no evidence of any abuse of his duties or that he had acted in some way improperly in arriving at his findings or that he was in breach of natural justice. Referring to a submission that the inspector had failed to inform Mr Stanley of the evidence against him, Mr Justice Geoghegan said there was no evidence of such failure. Mr Stanley had refused to co-operate and an order of the High Court had had to be made to direct him to answer questions from the inspector.